Atheism is not a default position

[Willamena]

Hold your horses.

Are you telling me that after having illuminated the room, it is till uncertain whether there is a chair or not? Must be, if Joe and Alice do not know what a chair is. They have to know what a chair is before we can resolve the issue by sheding light in the room.

If not, who can say whether there is, indeded, a chair in the room?

Ciao

- viole

"A chair in a dark room" is the metaphor. It represents the unknown variable. Turn on the light, and you've moved on to another topic.

Edit: For Joe to say "there either is or is not a chair," is possibility. To say, "there is a chair and Joe is either right or wrong," is simple realism (asserting that something unknown still has a truth value). The alternative is to recognize that "there is a chair in the room or no chair in the room" has no actual truth value while the lights are out, and refrain from making a fool of yourself should the lights come on and you are standing in Central Park.

 

[Thief]

I have no response to the rest of the post, yes.

How can either be "greater"? They are both creation.

well....if you do not have a sense of greatness one more so than the other.....
I could say you have rocks in your head....and you would hear no insult.

 

[Willamena]

well....if you do not have a sense of greatness one more so than the other.....
I could say you have rocks in your head....and you would hear no insult.

I have a sense of greatness, I just don't apply it to equally weighted things. I would apply it where there is some imbalance of measure.

For instance, creation is greater than non-creation.

 

[McBell]

Someone had to be First.

Yes, that is your bold empty claim.
Repeating it as you do I wonder if it is yourself you are trying to convince of it....

I think He believed in Himself.
He has been reported to have said......I AM!

Using bold empty claims to support bold empty claims does not help you outside the choir.

If you prefer to call Moses a liar.....now is the opportunity.

Wow.
You really are dredging the bottom of the desperation barrel..

 

[Thief]

I have a sense of greatness, I just don't apply it to equally weighted things. I would apply it where there is some imbalance of measure.

For instance, creation is greater than non-creation.

Babies are greater than rocks.
Sledge hammer a rock and no one will care.

But both are ignorant of God.....are you going to argue they are then equal?
(please say you won't)

 

[Thief]

Yes, that is your bold empty claim.
Repeating it as you do I wonder if it is yourself you are trying to convince of it....


Using bold empty claims to support bold empty claims does not help you outside the choir.


Wow.
You really are dredging the bottom of the desperation barrel..

Oh good....you woke up.....
now wake up.

 

[viole]

What's origin of thermodynamics laws?

Thermodynamical laws are statistical laws. Your question is equivalent to "what is the origin of 1/6 being the probability of getting 2 by throwing a die?".

I don't think they have an origin, because we know from Einstein that God does not play dice,

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Babies are greater than rocks.
Sledge hammer a rock and no one will care.

So the measure of "greatness" in this case is how much someone cares? Or perhaps humanity? Both are arbitrary measures, not to mention fleeting.

But both are ignorant of God.....are you going to argue they are then equal?
(please say you won't)

They are equal in the proverbial god's eye. They are equally bits of information.

 

[atanu]

.... What if I say I reject belief in the existence of God and reject the belief that God doesn't exist because I am of the opinion that there's no basis for either belief?

You reject the belief that you exist. (1)
Then you reject the belief that you do not exist. (2)

The subject is 'you'. When in sentence 1 you have deleted yourself, how can you go to the 2nd statement?

......
You reject the belief that a beer bottle exists. (3)
Then you reject the belief that a beer bottle does not exist. (4)

In sentence 3 you rejected the belief that a beer bottle exists. Then how can you proposition about an absent beer bottle being present?
.......

I think what you want to say is:

I do not have reason to believe that there is a beer bottle (5).
I do not have reason to believe that there is no beer bottle either (6).

........

In short "Rejecting a belief" (as in your sentence) and "not knowing whether to believe or not believe" are not same. "Rejecting a belief" is believing the counter.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Thermodynamical laws are statistical laws. Your question is equivalent to "what is the origin of 1/6 being the probability of getting 2 by throwing a die?".

I don't think they have an origin, because we know from Einstein that God does not play dice,

Ciao

- viole

In fact as we are creation of God, and we can play dice, as a co-creation.

Zero law of thermodynamics is not statistical one.

Ciao.

Masliaev.

 

[viole]

In fact as we are creation of God, and we can play dice, as a co-creation.

Zero law of thermodynamics is not statistical one.

Ciao.

Masliaev.

But the second law, the one that gives you a direction of time and the concept of causality, is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

I believe that spirits are initial creation, these minor beings passes from mineral to vegetable to animal to human to superior forms. Like different stages from simple to higher lifeforms. From "atom" to archangel". Evolution, I think we are spirits having an human experience, we left our anterior and inferior physical vehicles begins as we gain experience and merit.

What evidence do you have to support this belief?

 

[Ouroboros]

You do have a point. Do you think every child is born a Muslim? Every Child is Born Muslim

No.

The research shows that kids are born with a belief in a supreme power or agent of creation, a source for purpose, i.e. God. But it also shows they they're not born with a belief in a specific religion.

So it's important to see the difference here in the research about belief in God vs belief in a specific religion.

So you can see, children are not unbelievers in God, i.e. not atheists.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

But the second law, the one that gives you a direction of time and the concept of causality, is.

Ciao

- viole

Thermodynamics second law only says that spontaneously heat flow from a hot to a cool body, or equivalently, energy that can be transformed in work in a closed system never gets higher in its value.
There's statistical interpretation of this law, this is other point.

 

[Ouroboros]

This has been explained before. The fact that humans (or, at least, most humans) tend towards a belief in a God as they get older doesn't change the fact that they are born without the belief. The belief in God is something those children develop over time after experience and consideration. None of them could have been "born" believing in God. That's the point.

The research ArtieE linked to says otherwise.

The fact that we aren't born expressing any beliefs whatsoever. No child psychologist on the planet would claim that babies are born believing in God, and no studies ever conducted have lead to this conclusion.

But, but, that's what the articles ArtieE linked to say! The articles say that kids are born with a generic belief in God.

 

[Thief]

So the measure of "greatness" in this case is how much someone cares? Or perhaps humanity? Both are arbitrary measures, not to mention fleeting.


They are equal in the proverbial god's eye. They are equally bits of information.

Oh no....you really don't believe that....do you?

 

[viole]

Thermodynamics second law only says that spontaneously heat flow from a hot to a cool body, or equivalently, energy that can be transformed in work in a closed system never gets higher in its value.
There's statistical interpretation of this law, this is other point.

Well, there is only a statistical explanation. Do you know another explanation?

And I would not use the word "never". "Extremely improbable" is more appropriate.

Ciao

- viole

 

[marcosmasliaev]

What evidence do you have to support this belief?

Today we only have indirect evidences. This makes sense for me. Today science can't get acess point. If someone beliefs are based exclusively on science he/she must necessarily have an obtuse view of universe. In fact science has its own evolution in human society. Somethings go beyond today science. We are just beginning or science.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Well, there is only a statistical explanation. Do you know another explanation?

And I would not use the word "never". "Extremely improbable" is more appropriate.

Ciao

- viole

Ok, this is your view today. For me this doen't invalidate my quotes about cause and effect law.

 

[ArtieE]

In short "Rejecting a belief" (as in your sentence) and "not knowing whether to believe or not believe" are not same. "Rejecting a belief" is believing the counter.

So if at a soccer match a person says that he believes team A will win and I reject that belief it means I believe team B will win? Why can't I go for a draw?